-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
the virgin birth
- Thread starter ezra
- Start date
- Nov 23, 2012
- 15,017
- 4,990
A miracle beyond our understanding.
I often think about it.
I often think about it.
V
Vanguard
Guest
The virgin birth comes from 2 different "sources." The first, and the most important for Christianity, is the prophecy found in (NASB) Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. Without Mary's virginity, Jesus could not be the messiah, according to the Christian translation. However...
According to Judaism, Christians have been mistranslating the Hebrew version of that verse for centuries. The word used in the Hebrew is "almah" which simply means a young woman. Their word for a virgin is "betulah." In their bible, the word used in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. That means that the prophecy would actually read: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a [young woman] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
A interesting note is that in 2011, both the United States Council of Catholic Bishops and the [NIV] Committee on Bible Translation revised their position on Isaiah 7:14, and finally agreed with Jewish scholars that the verse more accurately translates into young woman instead of a virgin. They are revising their bibles as a result. Now before you have a panic attack and fly off the handle, all that means is that Mary would not have to be a virgin, just a young woman. Nothing else changes.
The second source for the virgin birth comes from older, pagan stories (mythology). Throughout pagan mythology, there are numerous "heroes" that were supposedly born from a virgin, and fathered by a god. Given that the story of Jesus is during the height of the Roman Empire, it is no surprise that those stories were repeated through the generations. Up until Emperor Constantine, the Roman Empire was a pagan based, polytheistic religion. This is not to say that the story of Jesus came from mythology, but neither can you discard it given the era.
Don't shoot the messenger! I am just stating the facts.
According to Judaism, Christians have been mistranslating the Hebrew version of that verse for centuries. The word used in the Hebrew is "almah" which simply means a young woman. Their word for a virgin is "betulah." In their bible, the word used in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. That means that the prophecy would actually read: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a [young woman] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
A interesting note is that in 2011, both the United States Council of Catholic Bishops and the [NIV] Committee on Bible Translation revised their position on Isaiah 7:14, and finally agreed with Jewish scholars that the verse more accurately translates into young woman instead of a virgin. They are revising their bibles as a result. Now before you have a panic attack and fly off the handle, all that means is that Mary would not have to be a virgin, just a young woman. Nothing else changes.
The second source for the virgin birth comes from older, pagan stories (mythology). Throughout pagan mythology, there are numerous "heroes" that were supposedly born from a virgin, and fathered by a god. Given that the story of Jesus is during the height of the Roman Empire, it is no surprise that those stories were repeated through the generations. Up until Emperor Constantine, the Roman Empire was a pagan based, polytheistic religion. This is not to say that the story of Jesus came from mythology, but neither can you discard it given the era.
Don't shoot the messenger! I am just stating the facts.
V
Vanguard
Guest
MSNBC carried the story, but that does not change the fact that the USCCB and the CBT did what they did.
While I agree about the symbolism of the virgin birth and what it means to Christians, I am also open minded. If it was indeed an error in translation, so be it. It doesn't change my belief that Mary was Jesus' mother, and Jesus is God's son. My faith is centered around Jesus being the messiah, not an obscure prophecy.
Blasphemous?
V
Vanguard
Guest
No...not facts from MSNBC. I agree they aren't exactly "trustworthy" but forget about them. Take them out of the equation, picture or whatever. Look at WHO is making the revisions.
Better yet: http://www.usccb.org/bible/isaiah/7 and scroll down to verse 14. Then read the foot note.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7%3A14&version=NIV and look at foot note . BG still retains the original "virgin" but now includes the revision as a foot note.
Again, not my position, just stating a fact (that they are doing this).
Mike
Member
- Mar 13, 2010
- 15,286
- 1,475
Yes. Blasphemous. How much do you want to defend your position that God is incapable of preserving His eternal Word for His people? How strong will you come with this notion that the Holy Spirit was a liar? That Jesus would follow the bloodline of Joseph? That Mary was unfaithful to Joseph?
V
Vanguard
Guest
Hold up. What they are doing with their revisions to Isaiah 7:14 is not my position. I am neither on the USCCB nor the CBT. I am merely reporting what is taking place.
Mike
Member
- Mar 13, 2010
- 15,286
- 1,475
So are you saying that you firmly believe that Jesus was born unto a virgin; that he shares no lineage with Joseph?
V
Vanguard
Guest
I am saying that my personal belief is what the Bible tells me. As a Protestant, I do not get hung up on whether or not Mary was a virgin. In the grand scheme of things, it does not matter. Yes Isaiah 7:14 is the prophecy that is fulfilled in Matthew chapter 1. If it is declared that Mary did not have to be a virgin, just a young woman, I would still hold that the Isaiah prophecy is fulfilled in Matthew chapter 1.
I am not, under any circumstance, saying Mary was not a virgin, was unfaithful, or anything else. The USCCB and the CBT are not saying it either. They are just agreeing that Jewish scholars are more than likely correct on the interpretation of that one word/phrase. Please do not read too much into it.
Culturally, ancient Jewish girls/young women were expected to be virgins until they were married. To have premarital sex was a death sentence. Although I am not one for assumptions, we can semi-safely assume that Mary was a virgin, regardless of how Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew chapter 1 are written.
V
Vanguard
Guest
I understand what you are getting at. I am not here to plant seeds of doubt, conspiracy or anything else. If anything, I defend accuracy and validity in the Bible. I am the one that screams "context!" What scholars do, who are far more educated than I, is on them. At the same time, I won't be forced to accept a certain view or doctrine without question. I stand by my convictions.
To answer your inquiry, yes I believe Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin.
Speculative
Member
- May 13, 2012
- 919
- 0
Also, don't forget Matthew 1:18-25. When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant he was going to put her away, but an angel appeared to him in a dream and told him that the baby was conceived by the Holy Spirit--so this proves that Mary was indeed a virgin, not merely a young maiden.
V
Vanguard
Guest
Thus my reasoning why she was a virgin. They can change Isaiah 7:14 but it still would not change the immaculate conception. Yes I am aware of the Catholic interpretation.